There is an increasing number of Westerners who believe that there are scientific miracles in the Qur'an, and converting on that basis. This blog documents my attempts to persuade one Muslim convert friend to examine these miracle claims (and other worrying aspects of Islam) rationally. Muslims are invited to respond in the comments section where I am always delighted to debate.

Monday, February 11, 2013

IERA and Evolution

The iERA (Islamic
Education and Research Academy) have recently released the latest opus in their
oeuvre of philosophical treatises: Has Evolution been
misunderstood? Revelation, Science and Certainty. And what a scorcher
it is! With daring elan and an inspiring disregard for logic, truth or syntax,
the mysterious author (Hamza Tzortzis) has once more confirmed his place in the
pantheon of preposterous pretenders to philosophical portent.

Over twenty-seven pages of befuddled oxymora iERA/Tzortzis
attempt to show that the theory of evolution is, like most
science, impossible to prove absolutely. Because of this lack
of absolute, definitive proof, it is illogical, the authors say, to base one's
beliefs on how the complexity of life came about upon it.

(Ironically, from the outset, Hamza attempts to make clear that his
gripe is not with evolution per se. "Note: The
aim of this article is not to reject the science related to evolution. Its aim
is to evoke thinking about the
scientific method and the philosophy of science." A more disingenuous piece of
mendacious clap-trap it would be hard to find. I might
find his plea more credible were it not for the existence of numerous
references to Intelligent Design (ID) on the iERA website and the fact that
despite his note, the aim of the paper is clearly to throw doubt upon
evolution.)

Although immensely long and distressingly wordy, the paper can be
summarised in the "conclusions" reached (rather precipitously) on
page 3, where it is proudly announced that the "problem is solved" by
"an approach which follows the subsequent logical structure":

Conclusions:
a. Science is a limited method of study with its own scope and sphereb. The philosophy of
science brings to light a whole range of issues and problems concerning
the theory and study of knowledge (epistemology).c. The
philosophy of science, when applied to evolution, exposes it as
not reaching the level of certainty.d.
Revelation is a source of certain knowledge. e. In
situations where science and Divine revelation are
irreconcilable, revelation supersedes science

Astute readers may have seen a chink in the reasoning here,
but at the risk of insulting your intelligence, let me highlight it. If the
Theory of Evolution is questionable because its absolute proof is impossible,
then by what possible criterion (other than faith) can Divine
Revelation be said to be "certain"? To call points a-e above a
"logical structure" is so far removed from reality that one has to wonder
at the sanity of anyone who can say such a thing, let alone proudly publish it
under the aegis of an organisation which receives tax breaks from HM Government
due to its charitable status as a religious
and educational organisation.

So convinced are the authors of their argument regarding the factual
certainty of Divine Revelation, that they repeat the canard several more
times:

# Divine Revelation
is certain knowledge (this type of certain knowledge is known as al’ilm
al-qat’i) # …revealed texts are certain and science cannot produce certain
knowledge. # For the Muslim, this revealed text is the Qur'an, and this text can be
established as a Divine book outside of the method and philosophy of science
using deductive arguments. # The point that
needs to be understood here is that the Qur'an can be shown to be Divine
revelation, and therefore its claims to knowledge are certain and factual.

So the Qur’an is
indisputably, provably and factually certain beyond any doubt
because…because…well because Hamza and the iERA say so and because there’s an
exotic sounding Arabic term for it. So that’s fine and dandy then.

But perhaps we’re
being unfair. Surely the iERA can’t expect its visitors to accept such a claim
without some reasoned argument…can it?

No, of course not.
Closer examination of the above excerpts reveals that the divinity of the
Qur’an can be ascertained via deductive arguments. A deductive
argument is valid if the conclusion can be deduced from its premise. The
deductive argument used by iERA is this:

1. A miracle is an
event that lies outside of the productive capacity of nature (there are
no causal links between the event and the nature of the event).
2. The Qur'an's literary form lies outside of the productive capacity of nature
(its literary
form cannot be logically explained using the Arabic language).
3. Therefore, the Qur'an is a miracle (a miracle is an act of God).

Now, once again,
perceptive readers may have noticed a slight logical leap that the iERA were
perhaps hoping to slip past us. A miracle, they explain, is by
its very nature supernatural. The Qur’an’s literary quality is so perfect as to
be beyond natural explanation. Whoa there! Back up a bit, guys! Did you
spot that, folks? The Qur’an is a literary miracle. No ifs, buts or
argument. The whole of iERA’s paper on logic and the inadequacy of science to
reveal absolute truths revolves around our agreeing on this one point.

Let me summarise: We
must apparently be wary of basing our beliefs on how life reached its present
variety on a theory which cannot be proved absolutely, and yet we
have to accept the divinity of the Qur’an on the basis of something so
subjective and flimsy as literary quality, which itself is decided by “experts”
whose livelihood is dependent upon their saying the Qur’an is a literary
miracle… or as Hamza et al have it: Since revealed
texts are certain and science cannot produce certain knowledge, revealed texts
will always supersede science…

But let us leave such
obvious objections aside for a moment and look instead at the main thrust of
the paper: that evolution cannot be proved absolutely and as such it is as much
a matter of faith - as is belief in God (although, as Hamza has
"proved", Divine Revelation is an indisputable fact and therefore
faith is unnecessary).

The awkward (for the iERA) notion that evolution is, to all
intents and purposes, a fact as far as science is concerned is addressed early
on. On the second page of his paper Hamza quotes one of my science heroes,
Stephen Jay Gould, in defence (unbelievably) of his argument that evolution is
unproven: In scientific terminology evolution is a fact, but this
use of the term means confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse
to withhold provisional assent. Thus Hamza seems to be accepting that
to question evolution would be inexplicably irrational and stubbornly
unreasonable (the dictionary definition of perverse) but
is apparently happy to be labeled such in his quest to calm the trauma of his
cognitive dissonance caused by Allah telling him that evolution is bollocks.
(Note: I know there are plenty of liberal, intelligent Muslims out there who
accept evolution. My gripe is not with you. It's with the Miracle Seekers like
the eejit Yusuf Estes - get over it.)

Hamza and the iERA seem to think that because we cannot observe
evolution happening, it must remain nothing more than a theory which awaits
definitive proof. Has the iERA not been reading the news these last few years,
I wonder. The rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria must surely be one of the
plainest, most well-known and simplest examples of evolution happening quite
literally under our noses as there is possible to be. And yet this fact must
remain in the drawer marked unproven whilst the miracle of the
Qur'an's literary quality is accepted, no questions asked (or allowed).

Let me finish by referring you to an irony noticed by Hamza.

The irony of this
evolution debate is that majority of the people who believe in evolution do so out
of the testimony of others, namely our teachers at school or the books we read,
because we haven't done the experiments ourselves.

Or, looked at another way:

The irony, Hamza, is
that the majority of Muslim Miracle seekers who believe in the perfect literary
quality of the Qur'an do so out of the testimony of others, namely their
immams at the mosque or the websites they visit, because they haven't got
the skills necessary either to read Classical Arabic or to make
such judgments. Evolution, on the other hand, can be verified simply by
asking your doctor about antibiotic resistant bacteria.

@ anon 10.19more pertinently, let me direct you Spinoza's examination of the supposed literary miracle of the Qur'an and a refutation of Tzortzis' paper on the subject: http://rationalislam.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/is-quran-literary-miracle.html

If I'm not mistaken, Hamza appears to be lifting his philosophical perspective wholesale from the Answers in Genesis / Genesis Flood dictum that states that where scripture and scientific evidence conflict, the evidence is to be ignored.

The degree of intellectual submission of Islamic creationism to its US evangelical counterparts is hilarious.

Follow by Email

Followers

Search This Blog

Rational Islam hits 10,000 a month!

Rational Islam? is now being read by over 10,000 visitors a month. Thank you for your interest and support!

What the Islamic Miracle Seekers would have you believe...

"The Quran, which was revealed fourteen centuries ago, mentioned facts only recently discovered or proven by scientists. This proves without doubt that the Quran must be the literal word of God, revealed by Him to the Prophet Muhammad , and that the Quran was not authored by Muhammad or by any other human being. This also proves that Muhammad is truly a prophet sent by God. It is beyond reason that anyone fourteen hundred years ago would have known these facts discovered or proven only recently with advanced equipment and sophisticated scientific methods."

Brothers and sisters, listen carefully. I shall say this only 763 times on numerous sites dotted around the web. We have a new target in o...

Quoted by so many Westerners as a reason for converting to Islam

Maurice Bucaille's book which purports to show there are scientific miracles in the Qur'an.

iERA (Islamic Education and Research Association)

Their site is worth a visit to discover an interesting interpretation of the words "education" and "research"

The world according to the ancients

Strikingly similar to the Qur'an's description of the world:So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge” 41:12

Bibliolatry

The truth is that the pretension to infallibility, by whomsoever made, has done endless mischief; with impartial malignity it has proved a curse, alike to those who have made it and those who have accepted it, and its most baneful shape is book infallibility. For...schools of philosophy are able to retreat from positions that have become untenable, while the dead hand of a book sets and stiffens...Wherever bibliolatry has prevailed, bigotry and cruelty have accompanied it. It lies at the root of the deep seated, sometimes disguised, never absent, antagonism ...to the freedom of thought and the spirit of scientific investigation. For those who look upon ignorance as one of the chief sources of evil, and who hold veracity, not merely in act, but in thought, to be the one condition of true progress, whether moral or intellectual, it is clear that the biblical idol, must go the way of all other idols. – T. H. Huxley, Science and Hebrew Tradition
When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives – Qur’an - Surah 47 verse 4.